Public Bill Committee

[Mr. John Bercowin the Chair]

John Bercow: I should like to remind right hon. and hon. Members that adequate notice of amendments should be given. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments.

Mike O'Brien: I beg to move,
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 12th December) meet—
(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 12th December;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th December;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th December.
I am sure that we will enjoy a useful and interesting debate under your able chairmanship, Mr. Bercow, and I look forward to it.
The Bill is short and contains a small number of clauses, so it should not detain us unduly long. Some Committees go on for months, but I suspect that we will be able to deal with the Bill in about three or four sittings. For that reason, we propose to meet again this afternoon and on Thursday at the times set out in the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Amendment proposed,
That the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee be varied as follows:
In paragraph (1)(a), leave out ‘4.00 p.m.’ and insert ‘5.00 p.m.’;
In paragraph (1)(b), leave out ‘1.00 p.m.’ and insert ‘2.00 p.m.’;
In paragraph (2), leave out ‘4.00 p.m. and insert ‘5.00 p.m.’.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Douglas Hogg: First, may I apologise for two things by way of preliminary? I have not served on a Committee as a Back Bencher for more than 20 years, and I have not been on a Committee for more than 12, so it is at least possible that I shall commit the occasional solecism. I apologise for that in advance.
Secondly, I have moved a manuscript amendment. I appreciate what you have just said about amendments, Mr. Bercow, and, with respect, I entirely agree that notice needs to be given. However, this is a somewhat exceptional situation. As you will see, the amendment would slip the whole thing back by an hour on Thursday afternoon and slip the start time back by an hour this afternoon. The reason for that is that it seems likely that there will be a statement on post offices on Thursday. That is a matter of extreme importance to many Members, particularly rural Members. I imagine that the constituents of Buckingham are pretty concerned about what will happen to the post offices in their constituency, Mr. Bercow, and they would be very sad indeed if their representative could not express their views on that occasion. I am sure that that is also true of those in other constituencies, including Sleaford and North Hykeham. I therefore respectfully suggest that it is important that members of the Committee can be present at the statement.
As far as this afternoon is concerned, you will have heard Mr. Speaker reply to a point of order yesterday, Mr. Bercow, on the report of the Iraq study group. As there was in business questions last Thursday, there was pressure for the Prime Minister to make a statement. Mr. Speaker indicated obliquely that he might—I can put it no stronger than that—be favourably disposed to an urgent question. I can tell you, Mr. Bercow, that there is an urgent question before him for his consideration.

David Heath: Several.

Douglas Hogg: I hear from the Liberal Benches that there are several. It is possible that Mr. Speaker will accede to an application for such a question. If he does, it would be a tragedy if hon. Members, particularly those of us who have condemned the war from the start, did not have the opportunity to be present. It is with those thoughts in mind that I have proposed my amendment. If agreed to, it would cause no prejudice to the conduct of the Committee, because as much time would be provided as under the motion. I cannot see any disadvantage to anybody, but much good would be served.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Bercow, does the amendment have to be taken en bloc, or are we allowed to take parts of it?

John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak on the matter, he is welcome to do so. He will be able to develop his line of argument on the case for distinguishing between different parts of the proposed manuscript amendment that has been tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Simon Hughes: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow.
Like the Solicitor-General, we anticipate that the whole discussion can be contained within the general parameters set out in the programme motion, irrespective of the differences between us. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I have listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and are sympathetic to his amendment. It is a sensible accommodation of likely business. It does not change the amount of time that the Committee intends to sit and I urge hon. Members to accept it, because it gives us cover if things elsewhere should occupy members of the Committee. My hon. Friend and I have the same interest in being elsewhere, for the reasons stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The amendment keeps the total number of hours; we may well finish within that time, but in any event, it gives us flexibility to enable us to do well both parts of our job this week.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow, and I look forward to serving on the Committee under your chairmanship.
I would like to make two points. First, I sent my apologies as I was not able to attend the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday because of another commitment. I spoke to the Solicitor-General before the Sub-Committee, however, and I did not raise any objections to the suggested timetable. At that stage, I had not had an opportunity to hear the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It seems to me that he makes some pertinent points and if they can be accommodated during the sitting, I would support that.
Secondly, I raised an eyebrow when I saw Thursday’s timetable, as it is unusual for a Committee to start sitting at 1 pm. It is of some inconvenience to me, and I understand that the reason is a desire on the part of some hon. Members to leave the House rather early on Thursday afternoon. One wonders whether some will return on Monday, although that is a matter only of quiet speculation. I say only that if the times proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend could be accommodated, I would be wholly content to go along with them. We should try to achieve consensus, however. If any hon. Member feels that some parts of the proposals could be accommodated, it will be desirable to reach agreement on that in the time of this short debate. I am sorry that when the timetable of the Programming Sub-Committee was put forward, I did not know of the particular point that my right hon. and learned Friend has raised.

Crispin Blunt: Having listened to the arguments so far, I would like to propose my own amendment, which I hope will be acceptable to the whole Committee.
My hon. Friend was incorrect on one point: in my experience, it is normal for Committees to start at 1 pm and finish at 4 pm on a Thursday. Had I been available for nomination to the Programming Sub-Committee—

Dominic Grieve: I defer to my hon. Friend, but I say to him only that I have sat on many Committees of this House and I cannot remember a single Committee starting at 1 o’clock. Heaven knows that I have sat on enough Committees in the last four years—it seems to be my lot in life.

Simon Hughes: It is a recent development.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may be right that it is a recent development, but the last Committee that I served on, which was not so long ago, definitely started at 2 pm on a Thursday afternoon.

Crispin Blunt: It is usually a matter of agreement that the time is either 1 to 4 pm or 2 to 5 pm. Neither time is without precedent. My hon. Friend is right that 2 to5 pm is probably more normal, but 1 to 4 pm is not unusual—I put it no more strongly than that.
However, if the Committee agrees, I would like to accommodate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham as far as possible by suggesting that we start at 4.30 pm today, which would mean amending paragraph (1)(a) from4 to 4.30 pm.

David Heath: The difficulty may be that 4.30 pm would not solve the problem that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred to. We are already expecting a statement. If we have an urgent question as well, it will depend on the order of the question and the statement as to which will take precedence.

Crispin Blunt: We may have four statements—we are not in a position guess. I was therefore attempting to take an acceptable course. The time could be 4.35 pm, or I would otherwise be content with 5 pm. I also suggest that a 2 pm start on Thursday ought to be acceptable. The Bill is relatively short. The Solicitor-General and I both had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that dealt with the Companies Bill, as indeed did you, Mr. Bercow—that was the first occasion on which I had the honour of serving under your chairmanship—which had rather more than 1,000 clauses. We have four sittings planned for this Bill; in the end, following some negotiation on the Companies Bill, we had 22 sittings to deal with 1,000 clauses. I dare say that we will be able to get through the issues in this Bill by Thursday, even if we take an hour of the total time for considering the Bill by changing the start time from 1 to 2 pm on Thursday. I therefore suggest that we change the start time from 1 to 2 pm on Thursday, accepting that we will finish at 4 pm.
I suggest that today’s start time should be 4.30 pm. However, whether the mood of the Committee will allow for a 5 pm start—

John Bercow: Order. The Committee needs to be clear, as does the Chairman, as to whether the hon. Gentleman is formally tabling an amendment. At the moment, the only formal amendment tabled was tabled in manuscript form, perfectly legitimately, by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table what effectively constitutes an amendment to an amendment, he needs to be clear and explicit about the precise terms of that proposed amendment to an amendment, with which, I think I am right in saying, the Committee would first deal, before coming to the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Crispin Blunt: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Bercow. In the circumstances, I was seeking merely an indication from around the Committee as to whether the views I was expressing were going to receive support.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is of course seeking compromise, which I suppose I am in favour of. He does not like a proposed end time of 5 pm on Thursday. I am very reluctant to lose any time from the total available for our deliberations, but if he were to suggest an end time of 4.30 pm on that day, and a start time today of 4.30 rather than 5 pm, we would keep the total amount of time. I would be willing to compromise on that basis.

John Bercow: Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicating that, on that basis, or in that expectation, he is prepared at this stage to withdraw his own amendment?

Douglas Hogg: I would be perfectly willing to do so, on the basis that there is another amendment coming forward. If we are going to revert to the Government’s motion, the answer is no.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that clarification. On that basis, a revised amendment—an amendment to an amendment—may be forthcoming from the hon. Member for Reigate. The written record will testify to that, although it will only be viewable subsequently. He might wish to continue and then conclude his remarks.

Crispin Blunt: I have listened to my right hon. and learned Friend, who, understandably, is not prepared to concede that hour on Thursday. It would seem that having three hours is more important to him than starting at 2 o’clock. In those circumstances, I support his amendment to sit from 2 o’clock to 5 o’clock, but I fear that we might not have a majority in Committee in favour of that. I shall not move my amendment and I shall support his one, but I fear that we will not succeed.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For the avoidance of doubt, we have one amendment in front of us, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mike O'Brien: I do not want to intrude on the private grief between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield and for Reigate over the times that the Committee will start in the afternoon, or anything like that, but I would like some clarification on the current proposal. Is it that we begin at 5 o’clock on Tuesday and 1 o’clock on Thursday?

Douglas Hogg: That is not my amendment.

Mike O'Brien: In that case, this to-ing and fro-ing between Opposition Members about their proposals has left me very much in the dark. I hope that you can give me some clarification, Mr. Bercow.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. It is indeed my responsibility to give clarification and I am happy to do so. I read out the amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but I shall do so again because there has been considerable to-ing and fro-ing, as the Solicitor-General said.
The proposed amendment is that the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee be varied as follows: in paragraph (1)(a), leave out “4.00 p.m.” and insert “5.00 p.m.” In paragraph (1)(b), leave out “1.00 p.m.” and insert “2.00 p.m.” In paragraph (2), leave out“4.00 p.m.” and insert “5.00 p.m.”

Mike O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Bercow. Opposition Members were invited to the Programming Sub-Committee. I received an apology from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, who was otherwise engaged, which I accept entirely. However, no concern was expressed in the Committee about the times that were set and the Opposition made no representations.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Bercow, I realise that the Government arrange things differently from the rest of us, but Back Benchers in Her Majesty’s Opposition are allowed their own opinion. My right hon. and learned Friend made a perfectly sensible suggestion, and we are trying to resolve the situation. He was not invited, or appointed to the Programming Sub-Committee.

John Bercow: I am grateful, but that is not a point of order, but a point of debate. The position is as stated.

Mike O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Bercow. I have no quarrel with a Back Bencher making a proposal. However, Front Benchers were invited to the Committee—

Dominic Grieve: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien: Let me finish my point and then I shall give way. Let us not get too agitated. We are only talking about the timings.
Opposition Front Benchers were invited to the Programming Sub-Committee, which met yesterday and had a brief discussion. No concern was expressed about the times and nothing led me to believe that Opposition Front Benchers would do anything other than accept them. However, I am not seeking to be unduly difficult and as far as I am concerned the main thing for the Government is that we get the Bill out following proper discussion by 4 pm on Thursday. I want to make it very clear that that is our view.
I shall be happy, however, with the Committee’s agreement, to accommodate the concerns of Back Benchers. If the Committee wishes to sit at 4.30 pm today, that is fine with me; I have no problem with that part of the proposal, or with a change of time from1 pm to 2 pm on Thursday. I shall be happy to sit from 2 pm until 4 pm. I am not happy, however, to extend the period over which we consider the Bill.
I seek your guidance Mr. Bercow, but as I understand it the 4 pm out-time is subject to a resolution of the House. We might not have to go back to the Commons to change it, but 4 pm is the time at which I should like the Bill to come out of the Committee. I shall be happy to listen to representations to the contrary, but we need to get on with consideration of the Bill if we are to get it out at the right time.

Dominic Grieve: I do rather slightly regret the Solicitor-General’s remarks. I hoped that I had made it clear earlier that I had no criticism of the Government over the matter. I spoke to the Solicitor-General because I knew that I would have difficulty in attending the Programming Sub-Committee. If I had felt at that time that I objected to anything about the programme, I would have said so. I did not. Although I found the 1 pm start slightly unusual, it did not bother me in the least; I was happy to go along with it. However, I did not know about the problems raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. If I believe that his argument has enough force, I will support it, even if we are defeated in the vote. If his amendment can be accommodated, I would seek to do so. That is no criticism whatsoever of the Government’s approach to the matter.
The Solicitor-Generalrose—

Douglas Hogg: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien: Let me respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, then I shall happily give way. The hon. Gentleman rightly has no criticism of the Government on this occasion. However, I am free to criticise the way in which the Opposition have dealt with the matter, and I have done so.

Douglas Hogg: I am seeking compromise, and that is what I have put to the Solicitor-General. I am sorry that he is not prepared to agree to extend the conclusion time on Thursday 14 December from 4 pm to 5 pm; I cannot think why he will not. No doubt he has his private reasons for that. However, what about today? This is more a point of order, Mr. Bercow: what time would we normally finish today?

John Bercow: Ordinarily, we would finish at about 7 pm. That is not a binding rule, but it is customary.

Douglas Hogg: I am grateful. May I then continue with my intervention, because I suspected that that was the case. If the Solicitor-General would accede to a proposition that we continue sitting until 8 pm or thereabouts today, I would be content with an out-time of 4 pm on Thursday. The result of that would be that we would lose very little time overall.

John Bercow: Order. Just before the Solicitor-General responds, may I advise the Committee that the matter that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised and his proposal that the Committee sit somewhat later are matters that can be determined informally by the Committee. It is only right for me to say that, although it forms no part of the amendment, the Solicitor-General will have heard the point made in the intervention by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mike O'Brien: Members of the Committee will have their own views about their appointments this evening. I am not sure when they will have expected the Committee to end and therefore what other appointments they might have. I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, but I make no commitment with regard to the time at which the Committee will finish its deliberations. There is no obligatory finishing time in the evening, so it is a matter for him whether he wishes to press his amendment. I have no great objection to starting at 4.30 pm this afternoon if that is what he wishes to do, but I remind the Committee that we have now spent 25 minutes of the sitting wasting time in discussing how long it will be. I would rather get on to the substance of the Bill, which is very important. I give way, however, because I know that a couple of hon. Members wish to intervene.

David Heath: I am getting rather frustrated by the length of the debate on something which should have been easily reconcilable. I hope that perhaps the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman mayin fact be three amendments rather than a single amendment, which will enable the Committee to reach a sensible decision. I also draw attention to the fact that no one should have any expectation as to how long the Committee will sit until this evening, other than having some recognition of the time of completion of business in the main Chamber. I therefore do not see that we have any difficulty with the time available for the Bill. If we can accommodate members of the Committee, surely it should be sensible to do so.

Mike O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Simon Hughes: I sense that there is now a recognition of the consensus to start a bit later today. The first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s amendment proposes a start a bit later on Thursday, and the second part of the motion, for reasons we all know, proposes that proceedings finish at four o’clock. We have the flexibility this evening and I hope that use will be made of that. Therefore, I support two parts of the amendment and not the third and then we can get on with the business.

Mike O'Brien: Let us see. Providing that we can discuss or vote on amendments consecutively, if you are content with that, Mr. Bercow, we can deal with each of those amendments in time. Providing that we can do that, I suggest that we proceed and vote on the various times, so that we can make a decision and move on.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I already made the point about the informal understanding that could lead to a later finish tonight. I ought, as a matter of record, to explain that the so-called “get-out time” is not a matter of a resolution of the House; that is a question of the get-out date. Therefore, there is nothing binding, so far as the House is concerned, about the get-out time, although I heard the Solicitor-General’s view that the get-out time should remain as it is.
I intend to proceed as follows. I will ask the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham if he wishes to withdraw his existing amendment and to submit a revised amendment, including what I would describe—for shorthand purposes—as the 4.30 point. I do not propose at this point to take any further amendments and, presented with a suitably revised amendment by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that is in order, I propose to put that to the vote.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Bercow and in reply to your question, I am prepared to withdrawmy existing amendment, substitute 4.30 for 4 in paragraph (1) and leave the rest of the measure as it is presently drafted.

John Bercow: Can I just be clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to continue with that part of his amendment that inserts a 5 pm finish on Thursday?

Douglas Hogg: No, it seems that at the moment that does not have the support of the Committee. In the interests of our agreement, I would like a 4.30 pm start today and 2 pm on Thursday. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,
That the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee be varied as follows: leave out from “at” in paragraph (1)(a) to “on” in paragraph (1)(b) and insert “4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 12th December;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.”—[Mr. Hogg.]

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered,
That the programming resolution of 11th December be amended—
That—
(1) during proceedings on the Fraud (Trials without a Jury) Bill the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 12th December) meet—
(a) at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 12th December;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th December;
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 14th December.—[The Solicitor-General.]

John Bercow: By way of background and for the benefit of Members not familiar with it, I ought to explain that as a result of deliberations on the Floor of the House on 1 November on the legislative process, a number of changes to that process were agreed by the House and have been reflected in revised Standing Orders. That is the background to the motion relating to the reporting of evidence.

Ordered,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 1

Commencement of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Douglas Hogg: I want to propose that clause 1 does not stand part of the Bill. As I said, my familiarity with Committees is rusty in the extreme but I think that it is in order for me to advance the arguments why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
The effect of clause 1 not standing part of the Bill is that we would go back to the affirmative resolution procedure, which is provided for in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Mr. Bercow, you and I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield were very interested in the passage of that Bill, as, no doubt, was the Solicitor-General, who will remember the considerable disagreement that arose between the Houses on what was then clause 42, which became clause 43; namely, whether complicated fraud cases should be held without a jury.
The House reached deadlock. At that stage, there was a bargaining process, to which I was not party, but it was reflected in the speeches made by the then Home Secretary and the Government spokesman in the other place, Lady Scotland, when they laid the affirmative resolution procedure. That procedure was part ofa bargain, which comprised something like the Government not trying to force their proposals forward; they would have very serious discussions with all the interested parties to see whether it was possible to formulate a lay assessor or special jury. It was plain that undertakings were being given to both Houses that very serious attempts would be made to agree a special procedure that did not involve judge-alone trials. That was the basis on which the other place accepted the Bill, and the basis on which it was enacted.

Stephen Hesford: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading I asked him if he would be in favour if the Government had come forward with a different procedure of judge and tribunal. He gave me an honest and straightforward answer: no, he would not. In those circumstances, even if the discussions had taken place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s position would have been the same. What, therefore, is his point?

Douglas Hogg: The point is that Governments should keep their word. It is as simple as that. Integrity is an important thing in government. This Government have not got a reputation for integrity and this is yet another example of why they have not. They entered into a bargain; they told the House of Commons and the House of Lords what that bargain was, and they are departing from it. It is unseemly and dishonest and we should not be a party to that kind of conduct.
The question is whether anybody has made a serious attempt to become involved with the other parties—

John Bercow: Order. I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the term “dishonest”.

Douglas Hogg: I certainly will.
It does nothing for the reputation of politics that a government should give their pledged word to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords and then not deliver on their pledge. I will not say that it is dishonest, simply that it is unseemly and disgraceful, and I hope that that will satisfy the decorum of this place.
There is no doubt what the House of Lords was told, and no doubt what the House of Commons was told. It is in Hansard; I have it here—I have the reports in front of me.

David Heath: Actually, three parties to that agreement, who are sitting in the Committee at the moment, can confirm the details.

Douglas Hogg: I will sit down soon, Mr. Bercow, so that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield can confirm what I am saying. There has been no serious attempt to involve anybody in finding alternative ways forward, which breaches the commitment to this House. For that reason alone, we should go back to the affirmative resolution procedure.
I have one other point, Mr. Bercow—I know that we need to press on. We are seeing this primary legislation simply in order to enable the Government to use the Parliament Act. The right hon. and noble Lord Hunt of Wirral made it absolutely plain that he and our friends would not support this on an affirmative resolution. The Government know full well that they will have difficulties with that resolution in another place and are introducing primary legislation so that the Parliament Act can be applied—and this change in the law, fundamental in its character, can thus be forced through. I happen to think that that is a disgrace.
Therefore there are two reasons for opposing the motion, Mr Bercow. First, although the Government have not been dishonest, they have departed from their pledged commitment to both Houses. Secondly, I deeply disapprove of the Parliament Act procedure.

Simon Hughes: Of course, there will be agreement between the three of us on these Benches, but the negotiations that led to the insertion of the clause with the affirmative resolution in both Houses was expressly done in order to require both Houses to be able to take part in that agreement—and expressly to avoid a type of Parliament Act procedure which in the end allows one House to prevail over the other.

Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point plain. Indeed, it was correct for him to make that point on the Floor of the House. I have a copy of that speech before me. This is a serious matter. It goes to the integrity of government, and I very much hope that we do not give clause 1 a fair passage.

Simon Hughes: I, too, have some short but similarly strongly felt views to express. This important matter is controversial because it is a move away from the principle that, in England and Wales, there should be a jury trial for all serious offences. That is why, when the relevant legislation was going through the House in 2003, it was important for the Government to get their Bill, but it was also important for the Opposition parties—and some Government Back Benchers—to ensure that the Bill was passed without a proposal to get rid of jury trial in England and Wales for this category of offences.
We had many robust debates in both Houses, and the Lords rejected the Government’s proposal on several occasions. Mr Bercow, you will remember that this has been round the course before in earlier guises. Finally, with the clock against us at the very end of the Session—literally, a day or two before prorogation—there were extremely intensive discussions. In the end, it was proposed to have a double lock on a proposal to move to jury trial: the House of Commons and the House of Lords both needed to agree it. That is contained in the section that clause 1 proposes to amend by taking out the double lock.
Three things follow from that. First, when discussing whether there was a way for the Government to have their Bill in general but not this particular desired part, we looked at various options and there was negotiation through day and night to see what accommodation could be given. In the end, this was found to be the most convenient outcome, so it was not an outcome that did not ultimately command the agreement of both Houses.
Secondly, it was clear—and the references are in Hansard, in exchanges between the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and myself—that there were other conditions to be fulfilled, with the double lock and negotiations. There is, to put it gently, debate on whether the envisaged formal consultations ever happened; I do not want to elaborate at this stage. In our view, they never happened in the way that we expected or envisaged. There was a consultation of sorts, but it was never sold at the time as what we had agreed. Indeed, we were surprised to be then told that that had been the expected consultation. In our view, therefore, the second part of the proposal was not delivered at the time.
My third point is that there have been discussions with the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General. I know that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has had such discussions on more than one occasion, as have I. The discussions were not meaningless—alternatives were considered, but in the end agreement was not possible and the block therefore remains. We sought agreement irrespective of the formal consultation, but it was not possible, and we are back where we started.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman was party to the agreement and it was anticipated that he would be party to the following discussions. He will remember that the then Home Secretary said:
“I find no difficulty tonight in offering the opportunity to the two main Opposition parties working with the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office and the senior judiciary to take a further look at how that might be taken forward.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 1027.]
Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he has been involved in any detailed discussions with the Government in fulfilment of that pledge?

Simon Hughes: The answer is that I can say expressly what happened: there was never any formal consultation with either of the Opposition parties, nor with the judiciary. There was a seminar in the Lords to which certain people were invited, but that was all, and it was never billed as such a consultation. There were then separate bilateral conversations at the invitation of the Attorney-General—both to the Conservative party and to me. So conversations have occurred, though not quite as we expected. The conclusion is the same, however: there was no agreement.
As the hon. Member for Wirral, West said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there was no presumption that alternatives did not exist—we considered alternatives. For example, we examined the possibility of smaller juries, and we considered juries with particular qualifications or characteristics. Some of us, however, were unwilling to move from the principle that there should be a jury trial, or a trial with jurors, to decide questions of fact. The double lock is intended to ensure that both Houses must be satisfied on the question of departing from the principle of jury trials in fraud cases in England and Wales. They have not been so satisfied. The right decision was made previously, and that decision remains the right one now. The clause should therefore be rejected because it would change a very clear political, parliamentary and constitutional agreement.

Dominic Grieve: I, too, was party to the discussions at the conclusion of the passage of the Criminal Justice Billin 2003—in particular during the stand-off disagreement between the House of Lords and the House of Commons on certain parts of that Bill. I have absolutely no doubt that the way in which the matter was resolved—in particular the introduction of the double-lock mechanism—was a direct consequence of the impasse that had been reached between the positions of the two Houses. There were numerous late night negotiations that covered different topics. At the end of the day, virtually every aspect had been satisfactorily resolved, except for the Government’s desire to remove juries from certain fraud trials.
Let me make the position clear, because I recollect the explicit words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) to the Home Secretary, outside the Chamber. He said that the Opposition were prepared to collapse the Criminal Justice Bill if the Government persisted in their desire to retain section 43, because we felt extremely strongly about it. It was in response to that that, after a time of meditation, the Government proposed what I assumed at the time to be a face-saving device to allow a graceful withdrawal; indeed it was almost explicitly represented to us as that. That was the double-lock mechanism, and it was designed to ensure that section 43 would not be implemented without the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that the removal of the double-lock mechanism is undesirable because we do not wish to end up with a Parliament Act position. The Government appeared to concede, as I understood it at the time of those negotiations, that only the consent of both Houses of Parliament would be satisfactory for the implementation of the proposals. These proposals are almost identical to the original ones, apart from the substitution of “High Court Judge” for “Crown Court Judge”. I can think of no good reason why the double-lock mechanism should not remain.
One of the startling aspects of this Bill is that, according to clause 4, on commencement, it appears that the Act is to come into force at the end of a period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed. As I highlighted on Second Reading, even if this Bill were to reach the statute book, there would be some procedural aspects that needed to be resolved by way of new court regulations before it could be implemented. I am startled to note that it is blithely assumed that eight weeks after this Bill is passed by the Houses of Parliament the first applications can be made to the Lord Chief Justice. The procedure exists for conducting such trials without further difficulty.
As we highlighted on Second Reading, there will be procedural issues about how to conduct a trial without a jury where the judge has to make rulings on law, possibly on public interest immunity material, and at the same time not be influenced in the decisions that he makes based on the facts. I assume that, if this unfortunate Bill were to be implemented, at some point the Government would tell us what they propose. There are, therefore, powerful reasons for having a commencement order. As the commencement order that we agreed back in 2003 was a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, it seems to me that it is a very good idea to keep that in.

David Heath: As I did not have the opportunity to do so on my earlier interventions, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow?
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is absolutely right when he says that this is a matter of integrity. It is the integrity of the Government that is in question because I, too, was a party to the discussions that were held with the Home Secretary in his room behind the Speaker’s Chair very late into the night when we were discussing the Criminal Justice Bill, as it then was.
It was absolutely clear to all who were involved that the proposal was supposed to have a particular effect, the double lock. It was absolutely clear that the Government were, in good faith, to undertake discussions with the Opposition parties to see if there was a consensus view on dealing with complex fraud cases. It is equally clear that, by virtue of this clause, the Government are going back on the double-lock mechanism and, secondly, that no such meaningful consultation between all parties took place. Instead we had this absurd seminar in which the Attorney-General in another place invited a few of his chums round to talk about jury trial in an amorphous and unstructured way. I am not sure about the Conservative Front Bench, but members of this Front Bench who speak for the Liberal Democrats on home affairs, on constitutional affairs or in respect of the Law Officers in our House were at no time asked to attend, invited to attend or even told of the existence of this seminar.

Dominic Grieve: I did not touch on the discussions in my own remarks but I am on the record on many occasions as saying that we did not consider the seminar to be the “discussions and negotiations” that the Government had offered, and we were totally unaware that that was in fact the only offering that was going to be made.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who confirms my view. We are left with a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth from the whole episode.
The one area in which the Government have been true to their word has been the undertaking that they gave a short time ago in another place not to use the order-making process that was outlined in the 2003 Act to proceed with the matter, but to bring it back as primary legislation. That is why the Bill is before us. For that, at least, I applaud them. However, many of us feel that it is brought before us in this form thanks not to altruism on the part of the Government but because they know perfectly well that they would not receive the consent of the other place to secondary legislation. In using the primary legislative route—particularly through a short Bill such as the one presented to us today—they accept that they will not get the measure through in this Session, but open up the opportunity of using the Parliament Acts to force it through against the strong arguments that will, I suspect, be adduced in another place.
We are left with what I think is a rather underhand procedure to achieve an objective that the Government undertook not to try to achieve by those means. That is a heavy charge to lay against the Government. The other matter that is pertinent, given that we are considering clause stand part, is the timeliness of the proposals in any case. I listened carefully to all the remarks made on Second Reading. At no time was any cogent argument put forward that circumstances had changed since our discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill in 2003.
In fact, if there were arguments of timeliness, they would be in the reverse direction, because we have had changes in procedure and changes to the definition of fraud, by virtue of the Fraud Act 2006, which we dealt with in the last Session. We have had the interesting experience of observing from afar very significant fraud trials under another jurisdiction—the common law jurisdiction of the United States of America, which has retained jury trial for complex fraud and appears to have no difficulty whatsoever in securing convictions on that basis. We are still, therefore, at a loss to know why the Government persist in the view that there is a difficulty that can be solved only by the abolition of an ancient right of the people of this country in respect of complex fraud.
For all those reasons, we would be absolutely right not to allow clause 1 to stand part of the Bill. In fact, if it were possible for the Committee to vote out every single clause of the Bill and to ask you, Mr. Bercow, to report that the Bill had been deleted in Committee, I would feel that it had done its work well.

Mike O'Brien: The clause is important. It removes the obligation for there to be an affirmative resolution before commencement and paves the way for the implementation of section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That allows for the prosecution in serious and complex fraud cases of persons before a judge sitting alone without a jury.
I have listened with care to the debate. I shall deal first with the procedural point raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, then look at some of the points that were raised about the consultation before saying something about the substance.
Clause 4 will commence the Bill, rather than implement section 43 of the 2003 Act. It will amend that section, but there will need to be a commencement order to bring the section into force. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s procedural question and his concerns about regulations and so on.
It was never intended that there should be a formal consultation such as those on White Papers, Green Papers and legislation. Our view was always that the Bill would provide an opportunity for representatives of the Opposition to meet Ministers to discuss whether there was room for agreement on the way forward on non-jury trials. To facilitate that, the Attorney-General organised a seminar, which was held in January 2005 and attended by spokespersons from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that the Liberal Democrats were not in attendance. Well, they were invited, and Lord Thomas of Gresford attended. I understand that he is a Liberal Democrat spokesman.

David Heath: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

Mike O'Brien: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman and, if so, I shall allow him to correct me.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. He said that it was never understood that there would be formal consultation. By whom? He was not party to the agreement, but those of us who were understood clearly that there would be formal consultation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford was invited, as a senior lawyer in the House of Lords, to a seminar organised by the Attorney-General. That is very different from inviting the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokespeople in the Commons to a formal consultation, on which we had a clear undertaking from the Government. Does he not understand that?

Mike O'Brien: I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I understand his point perfectly, but over the years there have been repeated opportunities for broad consultation on the Auld report, the Roskill report and so on. The matter has been going on for decades, never mind years. Professionals, the public and others have had ample opportunity to express their views over many years. The Government’s intention, which was always made clear, was that there would be an opportunity for Front Benchers of the main parties to come together and find out whether there was room for agreement. A seminar was held, to which not only Front Benchers were invited—

David Heath: We were not.

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that his Front Benchers were not invited. My understanding is that they were.

Simon Hughes: It is nonsense to debate matters of fact but, just for the record, as far as I am aware no invitation came personally to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome or myself. Lord Thomas, who was a spokesman in the Lords at the time, was invited, and he accepted and went along. As far as I am aware, the invitation to something billed as the consultation, following discussions with the Home Secretary the previous autumn, was not extended to Front Benchers in both Houses.

Mike O'Brien: My understanding was that the hon. Gentleman had been invited, but he tells me that he was not. I shall ask my officials to check whether an invitation went to him—perhaps he did not receive it. I understand that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield accepts that he was invited.

Dominic Grieve: I was certainly invited, but I did not understand from the invitation that it was the formal consultation procedure that the Government had promised. I thought that I was being invited to a seminar to consider the issue. The fact that it was the one and only consultation was not spelt out.

Mike O'Brien: I do not accept that a formal consultation, giving yet another opportunity for public discussion, was either necessary or promised. I am not sure what on earth the hon. Gentleman expected the seminar to be—it was billed clearly as a discussion on serious fraud trials. Its substance dealt with the options available, such as a single judge, a judge with assessors and various other alternatives in order to resolve what everyone accepts, I think, is an issue—the length and manageability of serious and complex fraud cases.
The seminar was held and views were expressed, not only by Front Benchers from the two main Opposition parties—they were representatives from the Lords—but by others who were present. Those were fed into the Government’s consideration of how to proceed. We took the view that it was unlikely that the other place would pass an order in relation to section 43. Following further thought, we decided that it would be better to amend the 2003 Act.
I listened to the rather agitated hyperbole—if I may call it that—from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about how we have proceeded. I think that for the Government to bring forward new primary legislation, which will be considered fully in this House and another place, is a perfectly honourable and proper way to proceed. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to express their views, as they have done and will continue to do, in the course of our discussions.
I shall move from process to substance.

Simon Hughes: For the record, I have seen a note on the seminar. The Solicitor-General said that the Government formed the view after the seminar that the House of Lords would not agree to trials without jury. In the seminar, was there a unanimous, or significant majority view about an acceptable alternative?

Mike O'Brien: The view that we needed to bring forward primary legislation was not formulated immediately after the seminar. The hon. Gentleman might recall that we debated the matter in the Chamber in considering an order. We decided that it was unlikely that it would get through the other place and, therefore, brought forward primary legislation.
On the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s point, at the end of the seminar, it was clear that we did not have consensus. However, most people who spoke thought that if we moved to non-jury trials, a single judge would be the best approach, although there was not a vote. Other people were in favour of a judge with assessors or small juries. Different views were expressed. However, most people who spoke indicated that if we were to move to non-jury trials, a single judge would be better.

Douglas Hogg: I am listening to the Solicitor-General carefully. My impression is that the majority of those who spoke were not in favour of departing from jury trials.

Mike O'Brien: I was not at the seminar, so I regret that I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether his view is correct. I understand that there was substantial support during the seminar for both points of view. There were those who took the view that jury trials should continue, even in serious and complex fraud cases, and those who thought that the system should change. As far as I am aware, no vote was taken, so I cannot deal with the point that he makes.
I shall deal now with the clause. It is important, because it repeals the requirement for an affirmative resolution, which means that section 43 will be amended. As a result, we will be able to bring about non-jury trials, following an appropriate commencement order. Trial without jury, under section 43, will relieve the excessive burden on jurors, who have their lives disrupted for months on end. At the same time, the provision will allow the full criminality of the most serious cases to be laid out, to ensure that defendants face charges that adequately reflect the totality of the accusations against them. Such cases will be dealt with more efficiently, because the judge sitting alone will be able to read evidence that otherwise would have to be presented orally, at length, to a jury. The need for indictments to be severed or simplified would be lessened.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow.
Has the Solicitor-General had discussions with the Lord Chief Justice and the presiding judges of the circuit about the extra personnel that would be required by the Queen’s bench division, to make available sufficient High Court judges to try the cases? Has he had discussions about the flexibility that will be required by HM Courts Service in listing to accommodate cases that are to be tried alone? Does he have any view on what support for these proposals exists among the judiciary?

Mike O'Brien: The judiciary will no doubt express its own views, but I think that I can say that there is support among many senior judges. No doubt, other judges take a different view. As in any group of people, there will be differing views. We know, from Lord Justice Auld’s report and the views expressed on a number of occasions by members of the judiciary, that there are those who support the proposals. The Lord Chief Justice will have to look in due course at the availability of High Court judges. We can discuss that matter when we reach that point of the Bill. To answer the point, there are differing views on the bench; of that I am sure. There is support for the change, as well as opposition to it.
It is important that the judge should be able fully to look at all the evidence. It is not our intention that the change to section 43 should be the thin end of the wedge of an attack on jury trials, as some have suggested. The provision will affect only a tiny number of exceptionally long and complex serious fraud cases. The Government have no plan to go further than is already provided for in section 43. The other provisions, in part 7 of the 2003 Act, have, by and large, already been implemented. Section 43 seeks to deal with a specific, fundamental problem in serious and complex fraud cases, namely, the combination of an enormously long trial, which imposes an intolerable burden on jurors, and a failure to achieve justice. We therefore need to move forward with this change.

Douglas Hogg: I want to make a point in response to the Solicitor-General. I make no complaint that he referred to my comments as “agitated hyperbole”. Agitated? Perhaps they were, because we are talking about a scandalous matter. Hyperbole? I think not, because I shall demonstrate that there has been a clear departure from plighted commitments.
First, let us examine the nature of the seminar which, surprisingly, the Solicitor-General did not attend. [Interruption.] If the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire was not Solicitor-General at the time, I withdraw that remark.

Mike O'Brien: I would have attended the seminar if I had been in a position to do so, but I was not Solicitor-General at the time.

Douglas Hogg: I stand corrected and I am prepared to acknowledge that I am at fault. However, we know the nature of the seminar as described by the Solicitor-General: it was a gathering at which a number of people were not present. I believe that the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey and for Somerton and Frome were invited but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was not aware of it. It constituted the formal consideration promised by the then Home Secretary, who said:
“I find no difficulty tonight in offering the opportunity to the two main Opposition parties working with the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office and the senior judiciary to take a further look at how that might be taken forward. We are able to look at that in relation to the SFO in a way that Roskill could not. In that light, I will not press for implementation of the clause.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 1027.] 
What was promised on the Floor of the House was a comprehensive consultation involving the two main Opposition parties and the other responsible stakeholders, which is the phrase now used. What has been described to us clearly does not fall within that description.

Dominic Grieve: I was unable to attend the seminar because I was unaware of its nature when I received the invitation and I had a prior commitment. My noble Friend Lord Kingsland attended, but at the end of the seminar he still did not appreciate that it was the formal consultation that the Government had offered.

Douglas Hogg: I have the greatest respect for my noble Friend Lord Kingsland and if he did not understand that it was the formal seminar promised by the Home Secretary of the day, one can be sure that no one else did either. What is certain is that the consultation promised by that Home Secretary was not delivered.

Simon Hughes: I want to make an obvious point. The present Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General occasionally telephone and ask me to meet them about something. Discussions take place between the offices, convenient dates are fixed and there is no doubt that the conversations are intended to be formal and on the record; officials attend, too. If there had been a telephone call to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield or to me saying, “We really need you at this seminar,” we could have rearranged the date, but it never had that status in the conversation with Opposition parties. That is my point.
There may have been invitations to a seminar and there may have been discussions but there are many such occasions, as the Solicitor-General indicated. We were not aware that something of such formality was taking place or we would have attended, or sought another date when we could have had those discussions.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is extremely important. I have often criticised the hon. Gentleman, but never for being otherwise than assiduous—sometimes he is too assiduous. Had he had the slightest inkling that this was the formal seminar that he had been promised he would have been the first to be there; he would have been there throughout and he would have talked at very great length. None of those things happened, and that is powerful evidence in support of my proposition.
However, I have a much more serious matter to raise: we heard the Solicitor-General’s explanation of what the commitment was and I found it impossible to reconcile his understanding of the formal commitment with that given by the Home Secretary of the day. That being so, I will remind the Committee what that Home Secretary said in support of accepting the affirmative resolution procedure.
The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey asked the then Home Secretary the following:
“Is it the implication of his remarks that, as a result of the Bill passing into law tonight, there will not be any serious fraud trial by a single judge in England and Wales?”
The then Home Secretary replied:
“I am prepared to give that undertaking. It is part of the agreement that we will retain the clause, but move forward towards looking at the alternative solutions that I have mentioned, and that could be incorporated in one or other of the two measures that have ... been consulted on, or will come before the House in the Queen’s Speech. That safeguard is appropriate. I give a binding undertaking that we will follow that agreement”. —[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 1028.]
The only thing that would be consistent with this Bill passing into law is if it applied to Northern Ireland. Everything else would be a breach of that undertaking.

Simon Hughes: For the record, and because the event was quite an important bit of political history, thehon. Member for Beaconsfield is absolutely right. He and his right hon. Friend made the view of the Conservative party as a whole about the Bill absolutely clear, as we did for the Liberal Democrats. It was clear that the Government were having to concede because they would not have got their legislation, and time was running out. That too is consistent with them needing to make that significant change of position, for otherwise the Bill would have fallen.

Douglas Hogg: Absolutely right. If anyone wants to confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it is in column 1030 for that day, where my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made it plain that what we were then witnessing was, in his own words, “a climbdown”. He went on to make it absolutely plain that the other place would not pass what was then clause 42. We are dealing with a departure from a commitment given on the Floor of the House, which is an extremely serious matter.
I have one other point to make. The Solicitor-General has, from time to time, referred in Committee and on the Floor of the House to the advantages of putting full criminality before the court. Anybody who has practiced in the criminal courts knows that one is seldom obliged to do that, and generally speaking it is a jolly good thing not to put full criminality, as it overloads indictments. Actually, one should identify those charges in respect of which there is good evidence, put the leading charges into the indictment and confine the case and the evidence to them. That is how to compress cases within manageable size, and it leads to a proper result, in that the appropriate penalty is then passed. To load the case with a multiplicity of indictments, simply to expose full criminality, has been deprecated by the judiciary time and time again. It is best dealt with, if at all, by offences being taking into consideration, or by the new procedure contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which enables trial judges sitting alone to look at what were previously those TICs.
The idea that you should, as a matter of course, put full criminality before a court is an absurd proposition and can only come from a Government who have little experience of criminal law.

Mike O'Brien: Let me briefly respond to a couple of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). There has been no departure, in our view, from any commitment that was given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly read out the list of individuals and organisations that would be expected to contribute: the Attorney-General, the Serious Fraud Office, the Opposition parties, and the senior judiciary. A seminar was held to ask them for their views.
I do not know quite what the representatives of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives thought they were going to when the Attorney-General, following the passage of the 2003 Act and in light of the fact that there had been a commitment to consultation, invited them to a discussion of how non-jury trials might take place. What on earth did they think they were doing if they were not going as part of the consultation? It beggars belief that the Opposition now claim that they sent respected senior lawyers to the very type of meeting and discussion promised by the Government, but that they did not know what they were doing. Do they often go along to meetings at which they do not know what on earth they are doing? It is preposterous to suggest that the leading spokesmen of the Opposition parties did not know what they were doing in going to that kind of seminar. Did they think it was an academic discussion, or some sort of light entertainment? What on earth did they think it was?
They knew perfectly well that it was a serious discussion about a very serious issue, because it had been the subject of legislation. The Government said that there would be further consultation, and there was. If certain spokesmen for the Opposition could not make it, that is fine; it is their decision. If certain spokesmen turned up, expressed a view, engaged in the discussion and let their views be known, before walking away not knowing what on earth they had been doing at the discussion, that is a problem for the Opposition parties. They need to look at the nature and qualities of some of their spokesmen, because I do not think that the position adopted by them is in the least bit acceptable. They knew that it was a consultation on a serious issue. They were involved in it. They may not have liked the outcome, or decided that it was inadequate, but I do not accept that they did not know what they were doing. That beggars belief.
Subsequently there have been meetings between spokesmen for the Opposition, myself, the Attorney-General and other hon. Members from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Those discussions resulted in the clear view that we cannot agree on the matter. Therefore, we need to go back to seeing whether the House is prepared to pass legislation in order to amend section 43 or the provisions dealing with its implementation, to ensure that we can move forward. The Government always made it clear that it was our intention to move forward.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised a point about a commitment made by a former Home Secretary. I have the words before me. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said:
“Is it the implication of his remarks that, as a result of the Bill passing into law tonight, there will not be any serious fraud trial by a single judge in England and Wales?”
It was clear then that the Bill had been amended so that an order would need to be passed by both Houses. That provision was there for a purpose, and everyone knew what it was. The implication of the hon. Gentleman’s question was whether there would need to be further legislative discussion and voting on the matter before section 43 could be implemented. As was clear then, it has always been the Government’s view that further legislation would be needed and we have no problem with that. The then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside, said that he was prepared to give an undertaking to that effect, and we have kept to it. Given that the order that we sought to introduce was unlikely to be passed, we have now introduced further legislation.
The then Home Secretary’s response to the comment was:
“I am prepared to give that undertaking.”
As I have explained, the undertaking has been kept. He continued:
“It is part of the agreement that we will retain the clause, but move forward towards looking”—
“looking” is the important word there—
“at the alternative solutions that I have mentioned”.—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 1028.]
That undertaking was kept—we looked at the alternative solutions. There was a seminar, and there were subsequent further meetings to discuss the various options. We have complied with the undertaking and I do not accept that there has been any breach of the sort that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has suggested.

Simon Hughes: This is one of the most pored-over exchanges in which I have ever been involved. The Solicitor-General was, no doubt inadvertently, slightly misleading about the timing. The exchange was in November 2003, at the end of the Session. The then Home Secretary mentioned examining progress to consider where we should go next, and he made the statement that we have all been quoting. There was then a whole year, during which we had a Queen’s Speech, and there were measures, but there was no formal consultation. The seminar was in January 2005, and it had nothing to do with the proposals that he had referred to in his response, because the parliamentary year had been and gone before the seminar came around.

Mike O'Brien: I do not accept that I have misled anyone. I indicated that the seminar was in January 2005—on the 24th, in fact. I gather that the invitation to the Liberal Democrats was not made to the hon. Gentleman, but to John Burnett, who I think may now be Lord Burnett. He was then the legal spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and the invitation went to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did not get the invitation but the Liberal Democrats did—there is no doubt about that.
When the seminar took place we had not sought to introduce the order, but clearly it was always our intention that at some point we would do so, or in any event seek to implement non-jury trials. Therefore, when we held the seminar it was the Attorney-General’s intention that that should constitute the consultation opportunity for the Opposition. Some Opposition spokesmen from another place decided to attend, but spokespersons from the Commons decided not to attend or were unable to for various reasons. I make no criticism of that, but it does not invalidate the consultation process and it should not cause problems for the Government. We believe that the process was perfectly proper and sensible.

Douglas Hogg: The Solicitor-General is seeking to reconcile what he is doing today with the commitments given by the then Home Secretary. Will he help the Committee in the following way? He would accept, I believe, that the Conservative spokesmen in the Commons and in the Lords—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and Lord Hunt of Wirral—made it plain that they would never vote for the affirmative resolution in the form of clause 42. Did the Home Secretary indicate at any stage that, if he could not obtain agreement or find a way forward using special assessors or a special jury, he would seek to ram through the provisions of clause 42 by subsequent primary legislation? Did he ever say that at any stage? I of course have his statement in front of me.

Mike O'Brien: I was not privy to his personal thoughts on the matter, but the intention of the Government was that we take the matter forward by way of order, and I assume that that was the Home Secretary’s intention at that stage.
During the year, we brought an order before the House, which again, by a significant majority, expressed forcefully the view that it wanted to see progress in dealing with the problem of complex and serious fraud trials. It therefore passed the order. It became clear, however, that the combined votes of the Opposition in the other place were likely to frustrate the passage of that order. In those circumstances, the Government took the view that the better way of proceeding was by way of primary legislation, and that is why we have brought the Bill before the House.

Douglas Hogg: It follows from what the Solicitor-General is saying that at no time was it suggested by the former Home Secretary, when he outlined the agreement to the House of the Commons, that there was a possibility that primary legislation would be used to force through clause 43. Had he done so, it might well have been the case that the Opposition parties would have defeated the Criminal Justice Bill, as it then was.

Mike O'Brien: I am not sure what point the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that he has made by saying that. However, if he feels happier by reason of having said it, I am pleased. I welcome anything that makes him happier about this Bill. Sofar as we are concerned, however, the clause has been brought forward honourably and properly. We have done it by way of primary legislation, we have subjected it to full and proper debate and we believe that the changes that it will enable us to undertake need to be made if we are to have a system of justice that better delivers effective justice. That is what the people of this country want. I hope that we can now vote on the clause.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Jurisdiction under section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Bercow, I would appreciate some guidance. Clause 2 amends section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The new clauses, for the most part, seek to do precisely the same thing but in different ways. I understand that they will be debated in due course, as you have set them out on the marshalled list. I want to be sure that if we do not debate the new clause stand part motion we will not prejudice our ability to debate subsequently the new clauses. I am not clear about that, and should like to be before we debate the new clauses.

John Bercow: There is no such problem. It is perfectly legitimate for us to debate Clause 2 now and, indeed, subsequently to debate and in due course to vote upon each of the new clauses. The order as set out is the order that we can and should follow

Dominic Grieve: Clause 2 seeks to amend Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to substitute for “Crown Court Judge” a “High Court Judge” conducting the trial.
I would not like the Bill to go through this Committee without the Solicitor-General explaining the Government’s reasoning in deciding to entrust these trials to High Court judges. My reason for saying this is that I noticed the Solicitor-General picking his words with some care in the course of the earlier debate about the extent to which the judiciary might support these proposals.
I am not in a position to conduct a survey of all Her Majesty’s judges, but I have yet to come across a single Crown court judge who did not consider, first, that jury trial was a perfectly satisfactory vehicle for dealing with long and complex fraud cases and, second, a Crown court Judge who did not think that the worst possible thing that could happen to him was to be asked to sit and try a fraud trial on his own. As I hinted in my earlier interventions in Committee, this is because there are all sorts of procedural problems surrounding such a trial process which judges—they have communicated with me informally about this in large numbers—consider to be massively unsatisfactory.
If a judge should express the view that they are sure a person is guilty in a complex criminal case that leads to a substantial period of imprisonment and should it subsequently transpire, whether through the appeal process or by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, that some further evidence comes to light which shows that the wretched defendant was in fact telling the total truth when he denied his criminality, this will have a serious adverse impact on the judge’s credibility and standing. This is almost inevitable, however good a judge is at carrying out his work. This highlights why involving the judiciary in factual decision making to a criminal standard of proof in serious cases is a very dangerous road to take.
The Government has taken the view that, in the circumstances, it should be High Court judges who should be carrying out this procedure and not Crown court judges. In fairness to the Government, that was a proposal that came from the Opposition Back Benches at the time of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act because it was suggested that High Court judges would be more familiar with the procedure of dealing with trials on their own than the average Crown court judge.
That in itself, however, does not fully explain the Government’s reasoning and therefore I would like to take the opportunity of probing so that we can have fully on the record why the Government have decided that this is the appropriate course of action to take. I think that would be very useful and I hope the Minister can enlighten the Committee on the matter.

Simon Hughes: I have a linked question, and a separate question that is germane to new clause 2. I take up the question asked by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Have the Government had consultations with the High Court bench on whether it is ready and preparing for the eventuality of Parliament agreeing to this measure? More particularly, do the Government envisage certain types of High Court judges doing the work rather than judges taken at random from the court? For example, will commercial judges be asked to do the work? Some reports suggest that there will be a list of designated High Court judges who will do this sort of work.
That gives rise to a matter that has caused some anxiety in previous debates and elsewhere: that there will be judges who are known to be the judges of fact and law in these cases. By definition, because they will be the only ones in the country who have that responsibility, they might be more exposed to threats from people who cannot knobble juries but who will be able to spot judges who might try their case.
My second question relates to clause 2(2), which amends section 48 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and refers to the wording not just in respect of fraud trials but of trials that would be heard by a single judge where there has been jury tampering or where the jury has been discharged for that reason.
When we debated the Criminal Justice Bill in 2003, it was accepted by Parliament, including the House of Commons, that the one exception to a jury trial in serious cases should be in the event of the corruption of a jury, where there was a safety issue, or when there was a suspicion that jury tampering meant that there could not be a fair verdict on fact. My question to the Solicitor-General is, has that part of the Act been implemented?
The Solicitor-Generalindicated assent.

Simon Hughes: The Solicitor-General nods, which confirms what I thought, that it has been implemented. If so, on how many occasions has the measure been invoked, if at all? If it has not been invoked, is it simply because no application has been made or that no such circumstances have arisen? I am seeking an update on this part of the proposal, because it is novel legal ground and there has been no chance in the formal domain, on the record in Parliament, to learn whether that has happened or any chance to discuss the progress towards implementation.

Bob Neill: I want to probe the Solicitor-General further on similar lines. I refer to my earlier intervention on the impact of the proposal on the judicial personnel who will be required to deal with these matters. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that the suggestion that these matters are dealt with by a High Court judge came largely from the Conservative Benches, but I want to be sure that the Solicitor-General and the Government have thought through the practical implications.
In murder cases, for example, it is possible to release the case from a High Court judge to a designated senior circuit judge—ticketed judges, as they are called in the profession. I take it that it is not intended that that should be the case in this measure, otherwise it would be self-defeating. Or would it? The ability to release a murder case to a senior circuit judge is a very useful and flexible tool in respect of listing and judicial availability. The lack of availability of ticketed judges in murder and rape cases is one of the constraints that cause delays in hearing cases.
It is important to ensure that there is not a similar delay in the cases we are discussing if a suitable judge designate is not available, a matter to which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey referred. If these cases are not to be released, how do we get round that lack of flexibility? It is ironic that it is now possible for senior circuit judges to sit in the Court of Appeal. They are very often ticketed to try murders, but it does not appear that they would be ticketed to try serious fraud cases. That might be an unintended consequence, but it seems to be a paradox. Will it be resolved through the Bill or regulations?
What consultation has there been, not just with the senior judiciary, but, particularly, with the Council of Circuit Judges, whose members might have a useful view, and presiding circuit judges, who will have a responsibility for the administration and listing of such cases? Those matters are as yet unclear, and I would be grateful to the Solicitor-General if he could provide clarification.

Mike O'Brien: Clause 2 provides that applications under section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the resulting non-jury trials would have to be heard by a High Court judge, rather than a Crown court judge. The change was proposed during various discussions and the Government have said that we are disposed to accept it. The status of High Court judges provides an added safeguard and we felt that the proposal was one to which we could accede.
I listened with great care to the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on the nature of the High Court judges who might consider such matters. The identification of appropriate judges to hear such cases would be a matter for the President of the Queen’s bench division. The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point: some senior circuit judges can try not only murder cases, but very complex ones, and some of them might be more than competent to deal with complex and serious fraud cases sitting alone. That is worth thinking about. I do not want to make public details of the recent discussions between the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Queen’s bench division, but it is safe to say that a point was made similar to that raised by the hon. Gentleman. I would like to think a little more about it. We might be able to identify certain circuit judges who would be capable of dealing with such cases sitting alone—some very able circuit judges come to mind, although, perhaps not all of them. I shall think about that, because he made some good points.
There are, I believe, 108 High Court judges. That limit is set in statute so we will have to take into account the availability of judges. We do not anticipate that the number of trials that are likely to take place in a year will be very great—we estimate an average of up to six. In the past, we have suggested that it could be as many as 15 or 20, but that is a remote prospect. However, given the various demands on High Court judges and given that such trials, even if they are few in number, will take a considerable length of time, there might well be pressures. It bears thinking about, so I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said.
As I told the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, in response to suggestions by the Opposition, we have concluded that High Court judges will be an added safeguard. We have no difficulty with that. High Court judges are used to deciding matters of great importance. They are senior judges who decide cases involving vast sums of money far more often than such sums are likely to be the subject of serious and complex fraud cases. To the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, I say that I do not think that there is a great likelihood that such judges will be nobbled or corrupted, or that they might become the victims of approaches that are not already made to them. They decide big cases now; there is no suggestion that there is corruption or attempted nobbling of those judges, and I do not anticipate that we are likely to face that in cases of serious and complex fraud that come before them. In any event, our judges are more than capable of dealing appropriately with any approach that might be made, because it would clearly be an unlawful approach.

Douglas Hogg: Reinforcing the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made, does the Solicitor-General accept that now, the judges who have the greatest experience in fraud cases are the Old Bailey judges—who are not High Court judges by definition—and senior circuit judges? Does he accept that High Court judges rarely try fraud cases because of the length of time that such cases often take? He would have great difficulty finding a High Court judge who, in his or her judicial capacity, has actually tried fraud cases.

Mike O'Brien: I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says and, as I told his hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I shall bear those points in mind. We have responded to a request from the Opposition to the effect that High Court judges might have the appropriate seniority to deal with such cases. I have some sympathy with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that some senior Old Bailey judges and circuit judges might be capable of trying the cases. That is a valid point and, as I have said, I should like some time to think about it. In due course, after reflection, I may come back to the Committee and express a view onthe issue.
Let me respond to the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey about section 48. That was implemented on 24 July, and I am unaware of any circumstance in which it has been invoked to date. I should be surprised if it had been. However, I shall double check that and if it is necessary to correct what I have said I shall write to the Committee.

Simon Hughes: On the point that was made by three hon. Members about the sort of judge to hear the cases, I hope that the Solicitor-General will say a word about whether there has been any discussion of the categories of High Court judges that Ministers have in mind.
Let me make it clear that nobody is suggesting that judges are likely to fall for attempts to corrupt them. That is not being alleged. Unless I am missing something, there will be a new category of judge or of trial. At the moment, the difficult cases dealt with by single judges are civil cases, not criminal cases, except when they are appeal hearings, in which higher court judges sit. Apart from jury-nobbling cases, which they could now hear, it would be a new circumstance in which a Crown court or High Court judge alone would be the judge of fact.

Mike O'Brien: It is not intended that the Government will identify a new category of High Court judges to sit in such cases. Which judges are available and appropriate to try particular cases is a decision that must be left to the Queen’s bench division.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are going into new territory. Judges will be hearing cases without juries. We know that there are non-jury trials in magistrates courts before district judges and in Northern Ireland; and in magistrates courts, although magistrates sit, there are no jurors. A lot of cases are decided without juries, so that is not a big innovation, but it will be a change for serious and complex fraud cases to be tried without a jury before a High Court judge. Some High Court judges deal primarily with civil cases, but they might well have had experience of criminal practice. The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we shall have to wait and see how the President of the Queen’s bench division decides to allocate judges.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the various views on the matter that have been expressed by judges. I have tried to make my points carefully, and it is part of my responsibility not to get judges involved in a contentious area of political debate. They should stay above that. It is publicly known that some support the change, and no doubt there are those who oppose it—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has referred to discussions that he has had with Crown court judges. I do not want to bring judges into a contentious party political debate, which would be undesirable given their standing above and beyond such debate. However, it is safe to say that there are different views.
I believe that I have dealt with all the points raised, and I shall be happy to deal with any others.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: Northern Ireland

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.

Dominic Grieve: The issue to consider is simple. If it is possible to avoid Northern Ireland having inflicted on it what the Government wish to inflict on England and Wales, I wish to take every opportunity to ensure that it is avoided. For the reasons that I have already given—I shall not labour them—I can think of no good reason why Northern Ireland should be included in the Bill. In due course, when we have the opportunity to vote on the clause, I shall seek to delete the reference to Northern Ireland so that, even if we have the misfortune of the Bill being imposed on England and Wales, the inhabitants of Northern Ireland can be protected from it.

Simon Hughes: It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary could tell the Committee why the proposal is being dealt with in this Bill rather than in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill. Will she also tell us what the effect of that legislation will be? It has not come to the House of Commons yet, so we have not considered it. I have glanced briefly at it, but not given it detailed attention. I understand that it may well be debated this week in the House of Lords. It is directly relevant to the clause because I understand that it will make changes to jury trial in Northern Ireland.
As the Minister and colleagues well know, Northern Ireland is the one part of the United Kingdom where for a long period, going back to the 1970s, and for particular reasons—namely terrorism concerns—trial without jury has existed in what are called the Diplock courts. Particular criteria must be met, but that is considered. What is now happening is the welcome normalisation of life in Northern Ireland, including the normalisation of the criminal justice process, which is going back to jury trial in many more cases. It would therefore seem sensible that we should debate these matters in the context of Northern Ireland, where Northern Ireland Members of both Houses could see that this is a matter that directly affects them, not one that is tagged on to a debate about English and Welsh jury trial, which is clearly a different legal system and one where relevant Members of our House and the House of Lords would have expertise and interest.
My question is first, what justification do the Government have for this proposal? It is a parallel point to that made a moment ago by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Secondly, can the Government explain how this is consistent with the general picture of Government policy towards Northern Ireland, which is to extend jury trial, not reduce it? It seems to me that if they are trying to get the message across in Northern Ireland that we want jury trial to be the norm again, this will be entirely inconsistent with that approach because with one piece of legislation they will be saying that jury trial can disappear while with the other they will be saying that jury trial can appear.
Finally, my other, linked, concern is that Northern Ireland may well in the past have been a place where the threats to the judge and the jury were considerable—far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Government in the 1970s took the view that the threats were such that they needed to get rid of juries in particular cases, and Parliament agreed to that in exceptional circumstances. Some of us oppose this legislation because we do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances. Fraud is, sadly, normal; it is not abnormal. Large-scale fraud happens, and it has happened over recent years just as much as it happens at the moment. This is not a response to a particular trend. We are therefore keen to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated similarly to the rest of the UK and that it does not have legislation going in two different and inconsistent directions.
Will the Minister reflect on whether it might be better if the Government accepted a view that is going to be expressed and voted on by Members on these Benches? That is that this clause should come out of the Bill and, if the Government want to make the case for this proposal for Northern Ireland, they should make it in the context of the wider debate—the wider legislative opportunity that will arise when Northern Ireland criminal justice is debated, which we happen to know will be in this Session.

Joan Ryan: As this is the first time I rise in this Committee I welcome you, Mr. Bercow, to the role of overseeing our proceedings.
The provisions set out in section 43 will enable the criminal justice system to deal more effectively with what we might call white-collar crime and will enable the full criminality of cases to be exposed. They will therefore result in more efficient trials and relieve the excessive burden on jurors, who have to have their lives disrupted on end, as we have already discussed. These are, in the Government’s view, substantial benefits. I can therefore see no reason why they should not be realised in Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales. That is the justification I give to right hon. and hon. Members of this Committee.
This is a simple issue. It is not about inflicting something on Northern Ireland; it is about extending a benefit to Northern Ireland, in the interests of justice. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey talked about normalisation in Northern Ireland, which is a process that hon. Members in all parts of the House welcome. Given that part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 already applies to Northern Ireland, it would seem strange if these changes were not made in parallel. Part 7 applies to Northern Ireland because the 2003 Act extends there. That is normal procedure. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the prospect of changes to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and the Diplock courts, but that is a process of normalisation. Northern Ireland is moving from difficult times to better times, which hopefully will become even better. That process should not affect our desire to see serious and complex fraud detected and successfully prosecuted in Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales.
The clause ensures simply that the Bill will extend to Northern Ireland. It is not a matter of tagging it on, which is the expression that the hon. Gentleman used. Part 7 applies, so it is not an extraordinary measure that is tagged on. I recommend that the Committee support the clause and that the provision be applied to Northern Ireland. Serious and complex fraud cases currently have little chance of resulting in a conviction that reflects their full criminality. If we are to apply a measure in England and Wales that allows such cases to be prosecuted before only a judge, there is no justification for not applying it in Northern Ireland.

Douglas Hogg: I am rising to support my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. To begin with, let us put an end to the idea of full criminality going before a court. It is a thoroughly bad concept. Anybody who knows anything about judicial processes knows that it is deprecated by the judges: they do not want to have full criminality brought before them as it extends trials unnecessarily. Let us put an end to that nonsense—I know that it comes from the Home Office, but it is nonsense.
Much more importantly, this is ultimately a matter of democracy. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I have something stuck in my throat. I wish it were whisky. We have been reminded by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that legislation that will affect the legal system in Northern Ireland is about to go through the House. The process will inevitably be attended very closely by Northern Ireland Members. Most importantly, they will be heavily represented at the Committee stage. Whether the benefits of these provisions should be extended to Northern Ireland is essentially a matter for Northern Ireland representatives. They are necessarily squeezed out of the process on this Bill because of their limited number and the fact that the main thrust of the Bill is directed towards England and Wales. They have every right to feel excluded. I therefore entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that the matter should be dealt with in legislation that applies exclusively to Northern Ireland, so that the hon. Memberswho represent that Province have an opportunity comprehensively to put their arguments.

Simon Hughes: The Minister made the general point, but can she tell us, just so that we are all clear, what exactly the Government are proposing for Northern Ireland? We have not heard that from Ministers, and it is relevant. They are proposing changes to the criminal justice system. I do not pretend to be an expert yet, because I have not looked at the Bill in detail, so it would be helpful to know what they propose. We could then form a judgment about whether it is appropriate to link it with this provision.
Secondly, another relevant point about full criminality has been raised. I absolutely support the argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. In addition, it is an argument applicable not only to the criminal law in that context but, for example, to fraud or financial insider dealing. One does not list every offence for some horrible sex offender and bring to court all the victims. Strong cases are taken, such offenders are convicted, and they will then ask for further offences to be taken into consideration. Those cases can then be taken off the file, as it were. That is absolutely normal for a taking and driving away, as it used to be called, or for a burglary or shoplifting offence. By definition, the full criminality never gets to the jury, because it does not need to.
There is a verdict of guilty and one of not guilty; there is a maximum sentence set by Parliament, and that maximum is the same whether an offender commits one of those offences or seven of them. The last bit of the full criminality emerges between conviction and sentence, when matters of previous conviction are read out and litigation is done. We have the process for dealing with that, and it could not be otherwise, or the courts would come to a grinding halt, and many people would be put to particular disadvantage by having to give evidence and take time being exposed to cross-examination, when the case does not need them to be brought to the witness stand.

Dominic Grieve: There is another point. I cannot remember, although the hon. Gentleman may, whether Northern Ireland benefits from the provisions of the recent legislation allowing specimen counts to be tabled in cases and the judge alone to deal with the remaining counts after conviction. My memory is not sufficiently good, but the Minister may be able to enlighten us further. In the English context, that is a powerful reason why the legislation is completely unnecessary.

Simon Hughes: I do not remember either. I was not leading for us on that Bill, so I do not have all the details of that in my head. However, I revert to my general point. Legislation for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland should, for the sake of the people and the representatives of Northern Ireland, be looked at in one place at one time. It is a nonsense for Parliament, in the same Session, to be dealing with criminal justice in Northern Ireland in two different pieces of legislation, which appear to be going in different directions, and which have so far been presented to us here without any explanation of how they fit into the wider context of what has just happened, if there have been recent changes, or what is about to happen, if the Government get their way.

Joan Ryan: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman’s last point. As I have explained to him, because part 7 of the 2003 Act applies to Northern Ireland, we have to deal with the connection with Northern Ireland here in this Bill in order for this measure to apply. That is why clause 3 is here. That is common practice, and is perfectly understandable.
I do not think that the Committee is the place to discuss legislation that is before the other place. The Bill extends to Northern Ireland for exactly the reason that has been given. As I have already said, and as he said, some of the current discussions about Northern Ireland have been about the continuation or otherwise of the Diplock courts.

Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady is arguing the case for extending the provision to Northern Ireland. Will she be good enough to tell us whether Northern Ireland representatives were involved in the consultation of the kind that was promised by the then Home Secretary and that took place to examine alternative possibilities involving special juries or lay assessors?

Joan Ryan: I can confirm to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he already knows, which is that I am not aware that representatives from Northern Ireland parties were present. I can also tell him that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is aware of both the Bill and the clause, and has expressed no misgivings about it whatever.
That touches on another point that has been mentioned—that legislation applying to Northern Ireland should appear in a specific Northern Ireland Bill, and be considered by a Committee containing Northern Ireland Members. Hon. Members will know that there is never any attempt to exclude elected representatives from Northern Ireland from any proceedings. They sit on many Committees, particularly those in which they express an interest, and the usual channels on both sides of the House work hard to ensure that that is achievable. I can assure all members of the Committee that Northern Ireland Members are well aware of our proceedings, including the Bill’s Second Reading. Had they requested a place in the Committee, we would all have made every effort to facilitate it, and I am not sure that the point is as significant as may have appeared to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey.
On full criminality, I shall just have to beg to differ with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I accept that his view is that full criminality is not a fundamental issue, but that is not my view, nor is it the view on the Government Benches. I think that the interests of justice make it important to expose full criminality in court—that is the case for all blue-collar crime, and there is no reason why the same should not be true for white-collar crime as well. Severing or truncating a charge is not the same as taking other offences into account, such as the theft of another 30 motor cars, or joyriding. There is a fundamental difference, and full criminality is important to justice.

Bob Neill: Does the Minister accept that the area in which full criminality becomes important is in sentencing? For example, within the bracket of sentences available to the judge—the maximum, and the tariff indicated by the Court of Appeal—the judge can decide which sentence is appropriate. The point that I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is making is that that is separate from the trial process, and the availability of full criminality to the sentencing judge does not make it necessary to have full criminality presented to the jury. That is the real point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, it would entirely meet the Minister’s argument if current procedures such as those for specimen counts were severed, so that they were dealt with on sentencing, after the trial on indictment. That would avoid overloading the indictment.

John Bercow: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Bob Neill: I apologise. I shall revert to that point.

Joan Ryan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his enthusiastic intervention. Full criminality is important on sentencing, but sentencing is based on evidence that is exposed during trial, so I stand by what I have said. In serious and complex fraud cases, it is a matter not of filling the indictment with a lot of minor counts, but of avoiding the need to sever the indictment, which results in two trials instead of one. Full criminality is also an important point there.

Dominic Grieve: I may have missed this, and I apologise if I did, but I raised the question of whether the new provisions regarding specimen counts, and the judge being able to consider the remaining outstanding counts by himself, apply to Northern Ireland as well. Can the Minister deal with that point?

Joan Ryan: I was coming to that point, and it is as the hon. Gentleman says. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 applies to Northern Ireland, but it has not yet commenced; that is planned for January 2007. I do not accept that any valid argument has been made that should prevent us applying these measures, which bring substantial benefits. There is absolutely no reason why those should not be realised in Northern Ireland as well as in England and Wales.

Douglas Hogg: I have two brief points. First, on the full criminality point, the Minister is suffering under an illusion. Nobody who practises in criminal courts thinks it desirable to overload indictments, and judges will not permit it. If the thought is that every offence will be reflected in account on the indictment, that is illusory; the judges will stop it. If those at the Home Office are labouring under that illusion, I wish that they would put it out of their tiny little minds.
Secondly, on a quite different point, it is clear from what the Minister said that the Northern Ireland representatives were not involved in the discussions that were held—in so far as they were—pursuant to the undertaking given by the then Home Secretary. They have every reason to feel aggrieved, which is a further reason for not allowing this particular Bill to apply to Northern Ireland.

Joan Ryan: I have very little to add, because I have answered the points made and stand by what I have already said in relation to full criminality. Had Northern Ireland representatives wished to be present, first, my understanding is that they can be present and speak even if they are not named members of the Committee. Secondly, like all of us, they know how to make representations to be members of the Committee. I have said that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has made clear that there are no issues with this matter. That should satisfy the Committee, and I urge that this clause stands part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clausestand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Commencement, extent and short title

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 4, page 2, line 9, leave out ‘months’ and insert ‘years’.
It is an exciting development—the amendment is actually on the Order Paper, as opposed to having snuck up on us unawares. It is a short amendment arguing that if the legislation is passed, it should come into effect not immediately, or after two months, but after two years. Obviously, amendments such as this always contain some mischief. I own up to that. Who knows—there might be a general election within the next two years. I could have made certain that an election took place before the Act came into effect by tabling an amendment that said “four years”, but there is plenty of opportunity for such an amendment at a later stage in proceedings. That will no doubt happen.

Douglas Hogg: In any event, as the other place is not going to pass the Bill, and, therefore, the Parliament Act will have to be invoked, we are well covered.

Simon Hughes: Indeed, we are well covered. However, I want to put the case that I and others summarised on Second Reading on the Floor of the House: at the moment, it is nonsense to be legislating. Since the idea was conceived, circumstances have changed in a way that moves the balance of the argument away from legislating. A further delay would give us more information on the justification for the case.
In summary, the Government started down this road during the Prime Minister’s first Administration. They came back to it in the 2003 Act and again in the previous Session. After the general election they sought to pass an order in the Commons to bring this provision into force, but it was dropped in the Lords. However, in the meantime, various other things have happened. First, Parliament spent a lot of time on the Fraud Act 2006, which has just come into force. We have had no time to evaluate it because it has not been on the statute book for long. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether any of it has come into force and, if so, how much of it? Parliament needs to know how important legislation on the subject before us is working, before it makes a judgment on what further legislation is required.
Secondly, two other procedural changes have been made recently. On 22 March last year, a new protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and complex criminal cases was handed down in court by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf. As Law Officers have accepted, it was intended to deal with that largest complaint—that the organisation of fraud cases was not as good as it should have been. It was meant to reduce the length of fraud cases by implementing measures relating to paperwork and bundling, to ensure the opportunity for summaries and to allow juries to be presented with the material in a more manageable way. That was done in the light of experience gained when such cases were heard in the courts and considered at the highest level of the judiciary.
That protocol was announced in March last year. It is now 18 months later. Will the Minister give us an evaluation of the changes so far? We know that they have been implemented, but have they been successful and, if so, can we see an evaluation? Have the judges carried one out? Have Law Officers been given one, or have they carried one out themselves?

It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o’clock.